Lexington, KY 40546

Online at: www.uky.edu/KPN

Number 1300
TOBACCO -Disease Update for the Week of April 30, 2012 WHEAT -Barley Yellow Dwarf Evident in Some Wheat Fields -Barley Yellow Dwarf: A Product of Warm Winter? -Leaf Rust Brewing in Some Wheat Fields

May 1, 2012
FRUIT CROPS -After Fruit Loss, Growers May Consider a Reduced-Spray Program LIVESTOCK -Darkling/Mealworm Beetles Can Cause Blister Beetle Scare DIAGNOSTIC LAB HIGHLIGHTS INSECT TRAP COUNTS

TOBACCO Disease Update for the Week of April 30, 2012 By Kenny Seebold Earlier in Kentucky Pest News, I reported that we were seeing a good bit of Rhizoctonia damping-off and target spot around the state. Reports of these two diseases have slowed, probably due to dry conditions. Compared to previous years, the incidence of Pythium root rot is relatively low. We have, however, seen some collar rot begin to develop on plants that have reached clipping size in float beds. Even though conditions arent highly favorable for disease, growers should continue to take a proactive approach in managing tobacco seedling diseases. For recommended management practices, consult previous issues of Kentucky Pest News for articles on managing Pythium root rot (No. 1296; April 3, 2012) and both Rhizoctonia damping-off and target spot (No. 1297, April 10, 2012). The focus of this weeks report is collar rot and its management. BACKGROUND. Collar rot begins to appear in float beds around 5 weeks after seeding. Resting structures (sclerotia) of the collar rot pathogen, normally located outside the float system, come out of their dormant state and produce cup-shaped fruiting bodies called apothecia. Apothecia then produce spores (ascospores) that are dispersed on wind currents. When ascospores land on susceptible tissue, they germinate if sufficient moisture is present. Long periods of leaf wetness (greater than 16 hours) are required for this process. Germinated ascospores produce hyphae (fungal threads) that penetrate tissue and begin the infection process. SYMPTOMS. The first symptoms of collar rot are small, dark green, water-soaked lesions that appear at the bases of stems; however, these symptoms are not seen commonly. In most cases, this disease becomes apparent when cankers on lower stems result in chlorosis of older leaves and subsequent wilting of plants or flagging of leaf tips (Fig. 1). When clusters of infected transplants collapse, open holes are formed in the plant canopy (Fig. 2). These clusters, or foci, are usually grapefruit-sized (4-6 in diameter). Stems of affected seedlings generally show a wet necrosis that is amber-to-brown in color, beginning at the base of the plant and extending upward (Fig. 3). Signs of the causal agent, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, may be present on symptomatic plants or on debris in float trays. These signs include a white, cottony mycelium (fungal mass), present if humidity is high, and irregularly shaped, sclerotia that are white at first and turn black as they mature (Fig. 4). Sclerotia resemble seeds or rodent droppings and are the

primary survival structure of S. sclerotiorum and are the primary source of inoculum for outbreaks in subsequent years. Plants that are 5-7 weeks old are most susceptible to collar rot. We often see the first cases shortly after plants are first clipped following a period of disease-favorable weather. Cool temperatures (60 to 75 F), high humidity, and overcast conditions, like those that have been common in Kentucky for the past week, are ideal for development of this disease. Its also important to note that S. sclerotiorum is an efficient colonizer of dead plant matter and weakened or injured tissue, and these are usually the first to be attacked. The fungus will then move from these areas to nearby healthy plants as long as cool temperatures and high humidity prevail. This is one of the ways that secondary spread of the collar rot pathogen takes place, since S. sclerotiorum does not produce airborne spores on infected tissue. The other way in which secondary spread can occur is through dispersal of infected tissue, which happens when infected plants are clipped. MANAGEMENT. There are no fungicides labeled specifically for control of Sclerotinia collar rot on tobacco transplants, making this a difficult disease to manage. Sound management practices are the most important options that a grower can use to fight collar rot. Adequate ventilation and air circulation are primary concerns, since these limit the duration of leaf and stem wetness. Growers should manage temperatures to promote healthy plants and minimize injury. The latter is important because injured tissues are more susceptible to S. sclerotiorum. Fertility should be kept at around 100 ppm (N); excessive levels of N can lead to a lush, dense canopy that will take longer to dry and will be more susceptible to attack by the collar rot pathogen. Leaf clippings should not be allowed to build up in transplant trays or remain in contact with seedlings. Mow seedlings at a low engine speed with a wellsharpened blade to ensure complete removal (and capture) of leaf pieces in the least injurious way possible. Frequent clippings will reduce the amount of tissue that must be removed by the mower and will cause less plant injury. These result in less leaf material left on the surface of the transplant trays. The collar rot pathogen can

overwinter on clippings and diseased plants, so these should be discarded a minimum of 100 yards from the transplant facility, or buried, to reduce the chance of spores making their way back into nearby float beds. Home gardens should not be planted near transplant facilities, and keep a weedfree zone around float beds. Over 300 species of plants, including many weeds, are hosts to S. sclerotiorum, making many weeds potential hosts for this pathogen.

Figure 1. Early symptoms of collar rot include yellowing of leaf tips and flagging of older leaves.

Figure 2. Collapse of clusters of plants leaves softball- to grapefruit-sized openings in the plant canopy.

companion article in this issue, written by Doug Johnson) and the very mild winter and early spring we have just experienced allowed aphids to remain active almost continuously since last fall. Barley yellow dwarf can infect various small grains grown in Kentucky, but most growers interest and concern center on wheat because of the significant amount of wheat grown in the state. However, BYD is also visible this year in barley, oats and spelt.
Figure 3. Stems infected by S. sclerotiorum typically are water-soaked and exhibit a dark-brown necrosis.

Symptoms associated with BYD can be highly variable depending on the host species, cultivar, age and health status of plants at the time of infection, the BYDV type involved, and environmental conditions. Foliar symptoms include leaf yellowing (Figure 5) and/or purpling from tip to base and from margin to center. Plants infected early (fall, winter, very early spring) are often stunted, have decreased tiller numbers, and plants may appear spiked (flag leaf stands erect). Symptoms may occur in individual plants or in patches of plants. In addition, it is very common for discolored leaves to exhibit some leaf spotting/streaking associated with secondary bacterial infections.

Figure 4. Signs of the collar rot pathogen include dense, white fungal growth and black, irregular sclerotia ranging from the size of a mustard seed to a raisin.

WHEAT Barley Yellow Dwarf Evident in Some Wheat Fields By Don Hershman Barley Yellow Dwarf (BYD), caused by a group of luteoviruses and generically referred to as barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV), is showing up in numerous wheat fields across Kentucky, but is especially evident in central KY. The appearance of BYD is no surprise in light the fact that BYDV is transmitted by multiple aphid species (see
Figure 5. Typical leaf yellowing associated with Barley Yellow Dwarf in wheat (photo by Chad Lee).

Most of the fields showing BYD this spring in Kentucky (Figure 6) look to be fairly normal, except for discoloration of the flag leaf, and in some cases the F-1 leaf (i.e., second leaf from the top). Stunting does not appear to be extremely common, suggesting that most infections occurred mid- to late March. Plants might look pretty

unhealthy, but our experience is that yield losses associated with late infections are minimal (10% or less).

English grain aphid, green bug and rice root aphid. The virus cannot be spread by any other method. The common strategy for avoidance of this pest is twofold. Planting date is the basis of this strategy. Generally we recommend that wheat not be planted until after the Hessian Fly free date which varies from about Oct 10th in HendersonDaviess Cos to Oct 15th in the TN border counties. Historically, this practice generally results in wheat emergence late enough in the fall to preclude much spread of virus among the wheat stand, by limiting the population growth and movement of the fall infesting aphid vectors. In addition many producers employ one of two insecticidal controls. Probably the most common is the application of a foliar insecticide about 30 days after wheat emergence. Alternatively, some growers prefer the use of a seed applied systemic insecticide. In essence all three of these options result in the limiting of virus movement by reducing the growth rate and spread of the aphid vector population. One of the reasons this works is that in most years these options only have to work until the fall and weather turns cold. Once the average temperature is consistently below about 48o F aphid population growth and movement is much reduced. So, in general the time period between mid to late November and early to mid March, aphid vectors are not able to spread BYDV among the wheat plants. Butthe aphids are NOT dead! In 2012 La Nina brought us a very mild winter with temperatures far in excess of 48o F as early as the last two weeks of January. This increase in temperatures allowed aphid populations to increase more rapidly than normal and permitted greater movement of aphids among wheat plants, both of these activities allowing increased incidence of BYDV infection. This likely accounted for a larger than average incidence of BYDV infected plants. You should note from Dr. Hershmans article, that the BYD symptoms we are currently seeing are those that match later infection by BYDV. This is consistent with late winter and early spring infection. We see little stunting and most of the off

Figure 6. Field shot showing yellowing associated with Barley Yellow Dwarf in wheat. Note scattered plants with yellowed leaf tips (photo by Chad Lee).

As previously stated, wheat cultivars differ in regard to expression of BYD symptoms as well as potential yield effects. However, due to the sporadic occurrence of BYD from year to year, as well as the rapid turnover of wheat cultivars, little information is available in terms of cultivar resistance to BYDV or yield effects. Thus, most emphasis on managing BYD is centered on managing the aphid vectors that transmit BYDV. The companion article by Doug Johnson discusses the aphid vector side of the story.

Barley Yellow Dwarf: A Product of Warm Winter? By Doug Johnson Symptoms of Barley Yellow Dwarf (BYD) are showing up in wheat fields across Kentucky (See companion article by Don Hershman in this issue). This disease is the result of infection of wheat plants by one of the luteovirus types. These viruses (BYDV) can only be moved among the plants by aphids; the most common of which in KY are bird cherry-oat aphid, corn leaf aphid,

coloring is occurring in the Flag and F1 leaves. Again symptoms associated with late infection. So, it is quite likely that this early warm-up allowed the aphids to increase reproduction, feeding and movement and for newly infected plants to increase the amount of virus with in plants. Certainly, this will result in some reduction in yield. One of the most often asked questions is should I spray in late January. The truth is we have no data on which to base an answer. We have a good understand of how insecticide treatments work in the fall, and a somewhat less clear view of spring treatments, but no data what so ever concerning winter applications.

would have reduce the aphid population that would become active (reproduction, feeding and spreading themselves and BYD virus) at green-up time. This is possible but is it probable? What could be missed? If you sprayed and the application was successful, because you are likely using a synthetic pyrethroid (not a systemic insecticide), you will not control the rice root aphid and perhaps a portion of the bird cherry-oat aphid population as they are likely on the wheat plant roots. So you could still see symptoms. What would have affected the success of your application? o Obviously, coverage, of the products available you must either hit the aphid or the aphids must come into contact with the insecticide on the plant o Temperature at the plant level. One wants temps above 50oF but remembers, temp. in the wheat may be different from air temp as measured at a standard weather site, especially on a sunny, still day (see below) o On a sunny day the wheat foliage layer may be warmer than the air temp because the plants and soil coverage may heat up due to the direct sunlight. Also, on a still day there would be less mixing of air at the wheat level and possibly cooler air above. If you want to know whether or not your application was successful beyond just killing aphids, that is to say it has reduced your loss due to BYD disease you would have to do some type of trial. This could be spraying and not spraying strips across your field. To determine the effect of these sprays you would need to: o Take before and after aphids counts, e.g., before spray, one day after, and 3 or 7 days after. This

If you are you are thinking to yourself- I should have sprayed but didnt or I sprayed but did I do any good, you might want to consider the following: You / your client should understand that if you did apply in late January , and the treatment was successful, the field may still have barley yellow dwarf caused symptoms / yield reduction. This is simply because if you had a large populations at the time of application, those aphids had been in the field and active well before their discovery. So even if you killed them all you may still see symptoms or yield reductions later. Therefore, if you wanted to determine if this application was successful you would have needed to do make before and after application aphids counts. You may kill the aphids but not obtain the desired effect of limiting BYD. In addition, you / your client should understand that even in the presence of aphids, if you do not make the spray, the field may not have barley yellow dwarf caused symptoms / yield reduction, because the aphids/BYD virus was not sufficiently active at that time to cause demonstrable harm. So, what good could you do? IF you knew that cereal grain aphids are present in above expected numbers: If you sprayed and the application was successful, you

could indicate if the application has provided aphid control. Evaluate BYD symptom evaluation at say about Feeks 10.1. This could indicate if your application had any effect on spread of BYD virus. Take multiple yield samples in the strips and average them for the strip. Then average all the nontreated and all the treated strips and compare the two numbers. This could indicate if your application had any effect on yield reduction.

Leaf Rust Brewing in Some Wheat Fields By Don Hershman Leaf rust (Fig. 7) is brewing in some fields planted to rust-susceptible varieties in spite of the recent dry weather. I get the sense that disease severity may increase sharply in fields that have not been treated with a fungicide, and that experience at least one significant rain event over the next 30 days.

For each of these indicators (aphid control, BYD score, and yield) you would need to take multiple samples within each strip. Average these measures to produce a mean for that measure representing each single strip. Then take each strips mean for a given measure, and average them for all the other treated or untreated strips respectively. This will produce a number for the given measure (e.g. for all the untreated or treated strips). You can compare the two numbers (treated or untreated) to see if they are different. This will give you a fair unbiased look at the measures. Without a real experimental design measuring outcomes is just a guessing or at best educated surmises. The results are not testable. Again, looking at Dr. Hershmans companion article it is quite possible that even in the presence of easily identifiable symptoms, the yield damage may not be large. In fact given the hot, sunny and very dry weather we are having during reproduction and grain fill, one may not be able to tell the difference between BYD loss and effects of spring weather.

Figure 7. Close-up of leaf rust pustules on wheat.

Fusarium head blight risk has been uniformly low across the state this spring because of the abnormally dry weather. As a result, many fields that may have otherwise been treated with a fungicide were not. Our Extension grains crop specialist, Jim Herbek, thinks most fields will be harvested about a week to 10 days earlier than normal this spring. If the 7-10 day-period before harvest is a time when the crop dries to harvest moisture, and with it now being only April 30, that means many fields will still have green tissue for at least another 30 days. That is plenty of time for

leaf rust to do considerable damage to vulnerable fields of wheat. Modern fungicides are all extremely effective against leaf rust. Some, like tebuconazole (e.g., Folicur and generics), are very cheap and can be applied up to 30 days to harvest. My main purpose in writing this article is to prompt you to look at wheat fields planted to leaf rust-susceptible varieties that have not been sprayed with a fungicide this spring, and evaluate the rust risk; if necessary, act while you still have time. Stripe rust is also visible in some fields, but at generally low levels. Hot and dry weather is very unfavorable for stripe rust, and we have had plenty of both during the last month. In addition, some fields are showing late infections of barley yellow dwarf (see companion article on BYD in this issue of KPN) which may result in a shorter grain fill period and limit the leaf rust risk. The main goal when it comes to leaf rust is to keep the flag leaf as free of disease as possible.

including reduced fungicide applications. Although diseases will continue to infect fruit crops, there are a few alternatives to abandoning spray programs altogether. Below are a few disease facts that growers should consider before altering their fungicide programs. Apple Fire blight bacterium was not active during the weeks preceding the freeze, as conditions were dry. The cool dry weather that followed also continued to suppress the pathogen. Nevertheless, warm wet weather can reinvigorate the bacterium and raise risk of infection. It appears that rainy weather has returned, and the fire blight bacterium may become active, again. Monitor risks using CougarBlight (http://wwwagwx.ca.uky.edu/plant_disease.html). Blossoms are the earliest susceptible tissue. While dead blossoms cannot become infected, secondary (rat tail) blossoms can become infected. Secondary blossoms usually develop later, especially if primary blossoms become damaged. Continue to monitor weather conditions. If risk is high during secondary bloom, apply streptomycin. The Shoot/twig blight phase of the fire blight disease often occurs after bloom. Young tender growth is most susceptible. Additionally, twigs and tissue damaged by freeze, hail, etc. can become infected, especially when temperatures are warm and rainy. Twigs and shoots that do not contain fruit are equally susceptible. Consider the level of risk by monitoring CougarBlight. If risk is high, copper is a good choice for fire blight management when fruit load is minimal; streptomycin is recommended for fruit-bearing apple. If orchards have a history of twig blight, Apogee provides excellent management tool. Ideally, growers should maintain a sufficient fire blight disease-control program. Even in the event of complete fruit loss, pathogens continue to build up in orchards. However, economics influence growers actions, and many growers opt for a reduced-pesticide schedule. Consider the following and assess particular situations independently: In the case of complete fruit loss, fire blight management may continue with copper sprays, alone. If yield potential is moderate to

FRUIT CROPS After Fruit Loss, Growers May Consider a Reduced-Spray Program By Nicole Ward After two nights of freezing temperatures on April 10-11, 2012, many fruit growers reported losses. Overall, western and southern counties suffered less damage than central and eastern counties. Susceptibility to freeze damage resulted from an earlier-than-normal bloom. However, due to delayed bud and fruit development, northern counties fared better (John Strang, horticulture specialist). Low temperatures ranged from 31 to 25F during the freeze event, and it appears that one to two degrees made enough difference to impart severe crop damage in some areas. With reported losses and possible low yields, some growers are considering reductions of inputs,

high, growers should follow their regular spray program as closely as possible. This is a decision that should be based on individual situations. Bactericides should be applied during bloom or during periods of succulent, tender growth if fire blight risk is high. When conditions are wet and temperatures are above 60F, fire blight can infect. Additionally, orchards with a history of fire blight should be sprayed on a regular schedule, regardless of fruit load. Highly susceptible varieties (i.e. Fugi, Gala) also require a regular spray schedule, regardless of fruit load. If risk is low, consider that early copper and/or streptomycin sprays should have reduced inoculum, thus far. However, proceed with caution. Scab will be active, regardless of fruit load. Continue to protect trees from scab. Growers should not abandon their scab-management spray programs. A low-input program may be considered again, from an economic standpoint. Fungicides may be applied at wider intervals if weather is not conducive for disease. Captan is a lower-cost alternative that may be considered as a preventative. If infection occurs, choose fungicides with high efficacy ratings. Overall, a low-input fungicide program this year will probably result in higher-than-normal disease pressure next year. Be prepared to follow a strict spray schedule in 2013. Keep in mind that a 10% fruit survival normally produces a full crop (John Strang, horticulture specialist). Growers should consider potential yield when evaluating low-input spray programs. This is a decision that should be based on individual situations. Proceed accordingly. Peach Even in the event of fruit loss, disease management, at some level, is required. Protection of this season's foliage will influence next years fruit. Monitor foliar and twig disease outbreaks carefully. Alternatively, wider spray intervals may be suitable if weather is not conducive for disease. A low-input, lower-cost spray program may include captan + sulfur. Growers should consider orchard history and weather conditions before selecting a low-input disease management program. As mentioned above, a 10% fruit

survival normally produces a full crop (John Strang, horticulture specialist). If a full crop is expected, resume a regular fungicide program immediately. Grape Good disease management programs in the past, as well as dormant and pre-bloom fungicide applications this season should have resulted in a significant reduction of fungal inoculum. Healthy vineyards that suffered complete fruit loss are not expected to encounter severe disease problems. However, growers should not abandon fungicide spray programs altogether. Vineyards with high to moderate fruit loss may opt for lower-cost fungicides or wider spray intervals, as influenced by weather conditions. Monitor downy mildew infections in all vineyards. Those with complete or moderate fruit loss may opt to treat downy mildew outbreaks curatively instead of maintaining a preventative program. As discussed above, this is not recommended, but economics may influence growers decisions. Proceed with caution.

LIVESTOCK Darkling/Mealworm Beetles Can Cause Blister Beetle Scare By Lee Townsend A variety of insects and a mite can infest grass or alfalfa hay, feed grain, or processed feeds. Common species include the mealworm / darkling beetle, flour beetles, drugstore beetle, Indian meal moth, fungus beetles, weevils, and grain mites. Some feed and develop only in intact kernels; others prefer fines and cracked kernels. Fungus beetles and grain mites tend to sweet feeds or grain with excess moisture.

Figure 8. Darkling beetle/mealworm beetle adult is about 3/4 inch long.

Figure 10. The wireworm-like larval stage is often called a mealworm. They can be found in accumulations of spilled feed or in bags that have been around for some time.

Many of these species are naturally present in small numbers around barns and buildings; occasionally, some arrive as accidental contaminants in feed or grain. Over time, they find spills or residual feed to use as breeding sites. Their numbers can increase dramatically in just a few months and they can disperse to other feed bunks or storage areas. Darkling beetles are very common. They avoid light and tend to accumulate under objects on the ground., large numbers can be found under stored hay bales or feed. As a black beetle, there is concern that it is a blister beetle. Fortunately, there is a distinct difference in appearance.

Unfortunately, infestations in feed may not be noticed until large numbers of individuals are present. Identification of the species present, sometimes more than one, is important in developing a control strategy. In some cases, there is confusion because different life stages of the same insect are not recognized. The adult stages of most stored grain insects are hard-shelled beetles but they have a larval stage, too. Often this is a very small, white, worm-like creature that is not seen or thought to be unrelated. Sanitation is the key to eliminating the problem. In addition to obvious places, infestations can linger in cracks and crevices where fines collect, or on the ground around feeders. Thorough sanitation and even correction of moisture problems are vital steps to solving current infestations and reducing chances of chronic troubles. It is relatively easy to clean up around feeding sites but infestations in stored bulk feed are more difficult to address. Complicating factors include type of feeds that are present, volume on hand and use rate, type of storage, and time of year. If a small supply is on hand, it may be best to feed it out, and then thoroughly clean the storage area and surroundings before they are re-filled. Brooms and shop vacs need to be used to clean all accessible fines. A pyrethrins spray labeled for use in feed storage areas after cleanup will help to eliminate surviving insects.

Figure 9. Blister beetle (left) with distinct "neck", the darkling beetle (right) does not have a narrow neck behind its head.

Consumption of a small amount of these arthropods probably does not pose a threat to animal health but long term infestations can lead to a significant loss of quality or condition so that the feed is rejected. Also, bringing infestations under control requires a significant amount of work. A thorough, persistent effort is needed and accomplishments may be short-lived if high standards of sanitation are not maintained.

DIAGNOSTIC LAB HIGHLIGHTS By Julie Beale and Paul Bachi Agronomic samples last week included numerous cases of barley yellow dwarf virus on wheat and a single sample of BYDV on oat; wheat spindle streak virus was also detected on wheat and leaf rust was found on spelt. On fruit and vegetable samples, we have diagnosed fire blight on pear and Botrytis blight, tobacco mosaic virus and timber rot on tomato. On ornamentals, we have seen thrips injury on fuchsia and verbena; bacterial leaf spot on dogwood (C. mas); Rhizoctonia web blight on crape myrtle; and needle rust and tip blight on pine.

INSECT TRAP COUNT April 19-26 Location Black cutworm Armyworm Corn earworm European corn borer Princeton, KY 0 12 2 0 Lexington, KY 1 49 0 0

Graphs of insect trap counts for the 2012 season are available on the IPM web site at http://www.uky.edu/Ag/IPM/ipm.htm. View trap counts for Fulton County, Kentucky at http://ces.ca.uky.edu/fulton/InsectTraps

Note: Trade names are used to simplify the information presented in this newsletter. No endorsement by the Cooperative Extension Service is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products that are not named.